Of Course The Obama Administration Wiretapped The Trump Campaign

A number of ex-Obama officials appear to suggest that the Obama administration may have actually wiretapped the Trump campaign, but that if they did it would have been justified by a court and part of an investigation by the Justice Department—not led by or ordered from the White House or the former president himself.

On Saturday, former President Obama’s spokesman Kevin Lewis denied that the former White House or the former President himself would have given such an order to wiretap Trump Tower—or any other type of surveillance in any case—but that such an order would have come from an “independent investigation led by the Department of Justice.”

“A cardinal rule of the Obama Administration was that no White House official ever interfered with any independent investigation led by the Department of Justice,” Lewis said. “As part of that practice, neither President Obama nor any White House official ever ordered surveillance on any U.S. citizen. Any suggestion otherwise is simply false.”

Lewis’ statement on the former president’s behalf came in response to the explosive charges from President Donald Trump, who tweeted on Saturday morning that the Obama team conducted surveillance on Trump Tower during the campaign and afterward.

Valerie Jarrett, another close Obama aide, also tweeted the statement from former President Obama’s spokesman, Lewis. Jarrett is, according to the U.K. Daily Mail, now living in the Obamas’ multimillion dollar Washington, D.C. mansion. From there, the Daily Mail reports, the former president and Jarrett will be running a “nerve center for their plan to mastermind the insurgency against President Trump.”

Interestingly, however, a number of other former Obama administration officials do not deny that such a wiretap existed. They just deny that the White House or Obama himself would have approved it or ordered it, and say that the Department of Justice would have sought it in consultation with a foreign intelligence surveillance, or FISA, court.

Obama’s former speechwriter Jon Favreau tweeted that he would warn reporters against saying there was no wiretap.

And Favreau endorsed a Twitter feed that laid out the reporting about the existence of the wiretaps, which cited reporting from Louise Mensch, formerly of Heat Street, and The Guardian that the Obama DOJ had sought a FISA court approved surveillance warrant for Trump Tower back in the summer of 2016 that was denied but received a narrower focused warrant in October.

David Axelrod, another former Obama adviser, tweeted that such a wiretap would receive court approval “for a reason.”

In other words, these ex-Obama officials are subtly confirming the accuracy of the reporting—that the Obama administration did in fact conduct surveillance on Trump Tower in October and post-election, and that the administration originally sought a warrant back in the summer of 2016—but they say the president himself and the Obama White House was not involved in the decision.

What’s more, Philip Rucker, the White House bureau chief at the Washington Post, says the same thing as these former Obama officials: That the Obama spokesman’s statement does not deny the existence of wiretaps on Trump Tower, only that Obama himself and the Obama White House did not approve them if they did exist.

The outrage from the media and the Democrats appears to be standard hatred of Trump. The president forced a set of facts into the news cycle that was already previously public but framed in a way that puts his political opponents and the establishment media on the defensive. This appears to be the calculus: either the wiretaps exist, as Trump suggests, and the president will use them to bludgeon the Obama administration and the media for impropriety and overreach; or, there were no wiretaps, which suggests the previous administration had no reason to suspect Trump colluded with a foreign government.

Yeah it's interesting that FISA approved wire taps my indeed be true. It's funny the author gave no reason to believe that the Obama administration was involved. If a FISA court thought there was reason enough to wiretap the Trump organization it doesn't make Trump look good. No, quite the opposite.

Agents do not ordinarily draw FISA requests around possible crimes. Possible crimes prompt applications for regular criminal wiretaps because the objective is to prosecute any such crimes in court. FISA applications, to the contrary, are drawn around people suspected of being operatives of a foreign power.

The first request, which, sources say, named Trump, was denied back in June, but the second was drawn more narrowly and was granted in October after evidence was presented of a server, possibly related to the Trump campaign, and its alleged links to two banks;SVB Bank and Russia’s Alfa Bank. While the Times story speaks of metadata, sources suggest that a FISA warrant was granted to look at the full content of emails and other related documents that may concern US persons.

This entire escapade was built around an echo chamber of media construction. Democrats, political hacks and their political supplicants in the intelligence agencies, and undoubtedly political appointments and fellow travelers in the courts, FBI and NSA all were involved with a wink from Obama.

It is dirty to the core and is a danger to the security of the USA by those putting personal political ambitions over the desirability and benefits of improved relationships between Russia and the US.

Washington under George Bush created a monster that found a champion in ‘Alinsky-ite’ Obama. Obama always had very shallow American roots. He was and is the bastard child of the neocon globalist. His work is not done.

A Tweet May Get Trump Impeached As President Declassified FISA Warrant On His Own People

By Sarah Jones and Jason Easley on Sat, Mar 4th, 2017 at 2:36 pm

Donald Trump shouldn't have tweeted his morning missives to paranoia, as he has announced to the world that he is being spied on and the news won't be good. While he was trying to cast aspersions on former President Obama, Trump managed to cut off his nose to spite his face because he focused attention on why the government would be spying on him.

To say that this is odd is understatement. This was a political dirty trick using the powers originally seized by the federal government under the fool George W. Bush and perfected by the Obama fifth column.

If these tactics can be used on a presidential candidate and then on a sitting president, no one is safe.

I am not sure which is worse, Obama knowing about it or Obama not knowing about it. I believe the latter wore frightening.

"Neither President Obama nor any White House official ever ordered surveillance on any U.S. citizen. Any suggestion otherwise is simply false," Lewis said in a statement.

The statement did not address the possibility that a wiretap of the Trump campaign could have been ordered by Justice Department officials.

The White House did not respond to a request to elaborate on Trump's accusations.

QuirkSat Mar 04, 07:33:00 PM EST

Why should they?

Trump accused Obama of personally ordering wiretaps on Trump and Trump Towers. If true, that would I believe be illegal.

The Obama team responded.

Trump should have a lawyer write his tweets. They would be a hell of a lot longer but it might keep him from being mocked.

On the political question...

QuirkSat Mar 04, 07:28:00 PM EST

As for the term 'fascist' as applied to Trump. I would be glad to argue that with you point for point anytime you would like.

If the quote you put up just above was from Levin it mirrors almost exactly one I posted earlier on this stream.

I put up a post on that action by Obama when it happened in January. I condemned it then because of the way it degrades privacy rights for every American citizen. I couldn't understand why he would order it then at the 11th hour of his presidency when he should have been packing up the silverware and china. If he did, as it looks like now, do that, sticking it to all Americans for political reasons, to make sure Trump didn't deep six the FBI investigation when he got in office, I condemn it even more.

That said, it would be a political issue not a legal one.

I've been preaching this since my day one on this blog. When will you chumps ever get it?

They are ALL dicks.

I merely concentrate on those that are affecting me most at the moment. To do more would be exhausting.

Someone was able to convince a judge that the Trump campaign had credible links to a foreign power. Where did that come from?

Good question. But remember, the FISA courts have historically been prone to give the government the benefit of the doubt in these instances. And this followed the WikiLeaks leaks of the DNC and Podesta e-mails. Trump didn't do himself any favors by his comments on Russia and bringing onto his team people with deep ties to Russia, Tillerson, Flynn, Mantefort, etc. It's easy to see were the FBI could come up with some scenario that would convince a FISA judge.

I disagreed with the whole Russian connection meme in the beginning because given the way identities can be hidden in the internet and false flags raised, I didn't think Russia would be stupid enough to do it in the way it was done. Trumped voiced the same opinion loudly and often.

However, there were always two parts of the investigation. First, did the Russians do it? Second, did they do it to help Trump?

While denying it at first, and still believing the proof is circumstantial, I have become more open to the idea that Russia is probably employing a chaos theory approach in trying to disrupt Western elections and institutions through cyber techniques and disinformation tactics. Hell, we can't be the only one that do it.

On the second part, there was an ongoing FBI investigation going on the Trump/Russia connection. With the possible exception of Comey, the FBI is not going to talk about an investigation or the proof they have until they believe they have enough evidence to bring an indictment they expect can bring a conviction. That doesn't preclude them from continuing looking for more evidence to make their case.

I never used the word perjury. I didn't because while the dictionary definition is rather simple, in a legal sense their are different variations on how the term is interpreted. Had I used the term perjury, it wouldn't mean Mukasey 'must be full of shit', it would mean me and Mr. Mukasey disagree.

Try and keep up, Doug.

What I have said is Sessions 'lied.' And lying to Congress is a bad thing and can get you in trouble.

On Fox, a congressman when questioned said that yes, he thought Sessiona lied. The young FOX news chippie said, 'so you think Sessions perjured himself. The Congressman said, 'I am no lawyer, from were I come from, if someone stands in front of you and tell you something that is not true, you don't say he perjured himself, you say he lied.'

The term "lie" implies an intent to deceive, to knowingly utter a falsehood. The bar is high and intent is paramount. To get something wrong is not lying. I believe perjury is the legal term for lying.

I have put this stuff up a couple times before but for the slow learners here is the video of the Franken questing and Session answer.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZNjZ8hNk1kU

You will note this was no 'set up' of Sessions. Franken didn't even ask Sessions whether he, Sessions, had any conversations with the Russians. He used a CNN story as a lead in for a question he wanted to ask. He posed the question to Sessions, indicating that it was just a story hanging out there somewhere, unconfirmed; however, assuming there was any truth to it, what would Sessions do as the new AG?

Sessions didn't ask the question he was asked. Instead he deflected. As a way of dodging the hypothetical presented to him, he went into a roundabout explanation of how he had been called a surrogate during the campaign and he never had any conversations with the Russians.

At that point, Franken let it drop.

[For those who can't handle modern concepts like video, you can find the transcript here...]

http://time.com/4688494/jeff-sessions-russia-confirmation/

For those who will say Sessions is just an old guy who got confused in the excitement of the moment and misspoke, let me say this...

Jeff Sessions may look like and elderly version of Howdy Doody or the Keebler elves, but he has spent his life as a lawyer, prosecutor, political operative, and congressman. He was the DOP attack dog at the state level. He has been involved in thousands of hearings, testimony, questioning and answering depositions, court room battles, and political battles. This little guy knows the ins and outs of the law. He wasn't confused by the Franken question. It wasn't and attack directed at him.

What he didn't want to do was answer Franken's question about what he would do if any of Trump's surrogates were caught up in the ongoing investigation, so what he did was takes on this circuitous romp through diversion land and he got caught up in his own bullshit.

Oh, what a tangled web we weave when first we practice to deceive.

No one tried to stick it to Sessions on this issue, he did it to himself.

Word is out there, ABc News, the WaPo, et al that Trump is pissed that Sessions decided to recuse himself especially after Trump had just a few hours earlier had publically tweeted his full confidence in him.

This is separate from the Sessions 'lying to Congress' issue.

Sessions has admitted his part in the Trump campaign. He has admitted being a called a Trump surrogate at times. The is every reason to believe that he would be investigated, even if at only a cursory level, regarding the alleged Trump/Russia connection.

What don't people get about the principle that as AG 'you can't be investigating yourself' and still maintain any public confidence in the integrity of the office?

You disagree with Murkasey too? Not surprising, given the rural sophisticate you have turned yourself into.

When these guys take the oath they promise to...

"...swear to tell the..."

1. "truth..."

2. "the whole truth..."

3. "and nothing but the truth."

Number 1 is associated with lies of commission, Number 2 with lies of omission, and Number 3 with diversionary or superfluous comment offered simply to confuse and dissemble.

Sessions violated number 1 in stating he had no contact with the Russkies. Some can, have, and will argue it wasn't a lie because he forgot or was confused, or that it wasn't intentional. To those who know little of Sessions background, it might seem a viable argument.

However, it doesn't address Number 3 in the oath and how Sessions responded to the question he was actually asked.

FRANKEN: OK. CNN has just published a story and I’m telling you this about a news story that’s just been published. I’m not expecting you to know whether or not it’s true or not.

But CNN just published a story alleging that the intelligence community provided documents to the president-elect last week that included information that quote, “Russian operatives claimed to have compromising personal and financial information about Mr. Trump.”

These documents also allegedly say quote, “There was a continuing exchange of information during the campaign between Trump’s surrogates and intermediaries for the Russian government.”

Now, again, I’m telling you this as it’s coming out, so you know. But if it’s true, it’s obviously extremely serious and if there is any evidence that anyone affiliated with the Trump campaign communicated with the Russian government in the course of this campaign, what will you do?

SESSIONS: Senator Franken, I’m not aware of any of those activities. I have been called a surrogate at a time or two in that campaign and I didn’t have – did not have communications with the Russians, and I’m unable to comment on it.

Franken didn't ask Sessions to speculate on the CNN story. He didn't ask him whether he knew about such events. He didn't ask him to speculate on whether they where true or not. What he asked was a simple question, if there is any evidence that anyone affiliated with the Trump campaign communicated with the Russian government in the course of this campaign, what will you do?

Now, you may not see any problem with the question asked and the answer given, Doug, but you can bet Sessions sure did. He's spent his entire life as lawyer and prosecutor and interrogator on congressional panels sorting through testimony looking for contradictions, falsehoods, and misdirections, trying to parse the truth in the testimony given. His reputation proceeds him. He is supposed to be one smart cookie, at least on legal matters.

If he didn't, well, he's just not qualified to be AG anyway.

Frankens asked Sessions a question on what he would do as AG given a specific set of circumstances.

Sessions answered 'I’m not aware of any of those activities...' (Irrelevant, that was not what he was asked.)

That 'I have been called a surrogate at a time or two in that campaign and I didn’t have – did not have communications with the Russians...' (Irrelevant: He's offering information that wasn't asked for and in no way answers the question asked.)

Then, 'and I’m unable to comment on it.'

Perhaps, he means he won't answer the question which would make more sense. But by saying he is unable to answer a simple question on how he would proceed if confirmed as AG 'if there is any evidence that anyone affiliated with the Trump campaign communicated with the Russian government in the course of this campaign,' he is either lying or unqualified for the job.

"What would you do if it is found that the President-elect hired prostitutes to perform “golden shower” urination shows for him in the presidential suite at the Ritz Carlton Hotel in Moscow, where President Barack Obama and his wife Michelle had previously stayed."

My most trusted inside source - Q's Surreptitious Surveillance Services LLC, working out of Detroit, Michigan - QSSS - has informed me that Tony Blair is teaming up with The Donald as a hired hand to establish peace in the Mid-East....

I sent it along to Drudge and the Daily Mail here:

Revealed: Tony Blair's secret White House summit as he launches astonishing bid to work for Donald Trump... as his Middle East peace envoy Blair attended a secret meeting at the White House to discuss working for TrumpHeld talks with Trump’s son-in-law and senior adviser Jared Kushner this week The former PM and Kushner have met three times in secret since SeptemberCould setback Theresa May’s hopes of forging ‘special relationship’ with TrumpBy Simon Walters Political Editor For The Mail On Sunday

Washington Post reports FBI sought phone records and emails of James Rosen as part of spying case against goverment official

The Obama administration has investigated a reporter with Fox News as a probable "co-conspirator" in a criminal spying case after a report based on a State Department leak.

The Justice Department named Fox News's chief Washington correspondent James Rosen "at the very least, either as an aider, abettor and/or co-conspirator" in a 2010 espionage case against State Department security adviser Stephen Jin-Woo Kim. The accusation appears in a court affidavit first reported by the Washington Post.

Kim is charged with handing over a classified government report in June 2009 that said North Korea would probably test a nuclear weapon in response to a UN resolution condemning previous tests. Rosen reported the analysis on 11 June under the headline 'North Korea Intends to Match UN Resolution With New Nuclear Test'.

The FBI sought and obtained a warrant to seize all of Rosen's correspondence with Kim, and an additional two days' worth of Rosen's personal email, the Post reported. The bureau also obtained Rosen's phone records and used security badge records to track his movements to and from the State Department.

"We are outraged to learn today that James Rosen was named a criminal co-conspirator for simply doing his job as a reporter," Fox News executive vice-president of news editorial Michael Clemente said in the statement. "In fact, it is downright chilling. We will unequivocally defend his right to operate as a member of what up until now has always been a free press."

Magnificent Ronald and the Founding Fathers of al Qaeda

“These gentlemen are the moral equivalents of America’s founding fathers.” — Ronald Reagan while introducing the Mujahideen leaders to media on the White house lawns (1985). During Reagan’s 8 years in power, the CIA secretly sent billions of dollars of military aid to the mujahedeen in Afghanistan in a US-supported jihad against the Soviet Union. We repeated the insanity with ISIS against Syria.